The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that an offer to “resolve” a debt without disclosing its time-barred status may be deceptive or misleading under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) even in the absence of an express threat of litigation. A copy of the opinion in Holzman v. Malcolm S. Gerald & Assocs., Inc. is available at: Link to Opinion. The letter at issue stated the debt collector wanted to “resolve” the consumer’s account by accepting a reduced amount by a specific date. The consumer filed a lawsuit alleging the letter was false and misleading in…
Posts published by “Eric Rosenkoetter”
Eric Rosenkoetter is a principal at Maurice Wutscher LLP, and is focused on advising clients with respect to federal and state consumer financial protection laws and data privacy and security, and he is a Certified Information Privacy Professional though the International Association of Privacy Professionals. He also brings to the table experience as a litigator, chief compliance and ethics officer, director of legislative affairs, federal lobbyist, and administrative hearings officer. Eric earned his Juris Doctor from Washington University School of Law, and his Bachelor of Business Administration from Southern Methodist University. He is a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals, the Receivables Management Association International (RMAI), and ACA International. He is admitted to practice law in Texas and Missouri and in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/eric-rosenkoetter/
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated opinion in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP on March 20, ruling the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not cover persons engaged in “non-judicial foreclosures” except with respect to a single provision contained in the FDCPA. Colorado, like many western states, has a procedure that allows a lender to foreclose property without the need to file a lawsuit. Here, as you may recall, a Colorado borrower defaulted on his home loan and the mortgage servicer hired a law firm to pursue a non-judicial foreclosure. The borrower informed the law firm he was disputing…
A trio of bills currently pending in the New York State Senate would extinguish debt, require licensing and impose additional requirements in collection litigation. New York Senate Bill 691 and Senate Bill 2239 would completely extinguish the right to collect debt arising from a consumer credit transaction upon expiration of the statute of limitations. Senate Bill 691 goes a bit further by proposing to reduce the statute of limitations in “consumer credit transactions” to three years although it does provide certain exceptions. In addition, Senate Bill 691 would require certain disclosures to be provided to defendants in lawsuits brought on…
Newly introduced legislation in Texas, House Bill 996, addresses when a debt buyer can initiate legal action or arbitration to collect a consumer debt and requires specific notices with respect to out-of-statute debt. “Debt buyer” is defined as “a person who purchases or otherwise acquires a consumer debt from a creditor or other subsequent owner of the consumer debt, regardless of whether the person collects the consumer debt, hires a third party to collect the consumer debt, or hires an attorney to pursue collection litigation in connection with the consumer debt. The term does not include: a person who acquires a charged-off…
The Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation has adopted a record retention rule for debt collectors requiring that virtually all records be retained for a minimum of five years “following the transaction.” Records that must be retained include the following: all audio recordings of contact with customers; records of all customers contacted; all written correspondence (including that sent electronically) between the licensee and the consumer; complete files and documentation of every debt the licensee has attempted to collect including any and all documents relating to that debt; all communications received from customers including copies of all documents received in hard…
Legislation has been introduced in Illinois and New York that would require debt collectors to provide consumers with specific notices. In New York, Assembly Bill 876 would require the initial written communication to a debtor to include the following: “Debtor’s Rights As a debtor who owes or may owe a consumer claim, you are given some protection and rights by the New York and federal laws regulating debt collection procedures. You should be aware of your rights. 1. A debt collector may contact you or any member of your family or household directly. However, they may not contact you with such…
Colorado House Bill 19-1089, introduced on Jan. 14, would amend the Colorado Revised Statutes dealing with property and earnings exemptions by adding a new definition for “medical debt,” which would mean “any obligation or alleged obligation of a person to pay money arising out of the provision of health care services as defined in section 10-16-102(33).” Under the legislation, “the earnings of an individual whose family income does not exceed four hundred percent of the current federal poverty guidelines, adjusted for family size, are not subject to garnishment or levy under execution of attachment if the writ is the result of…
On Dec. 28, 2018, New York Senate Bill 3491 was signed into law and will become effective March 29, 2019. The legislation, in its final form, simply prohibits “principal creditors” and debt collection agencies from: (a) making any representation that a person is required to pay the debt of a family member in a way that contravenes the FDCPA; and (b) making any misrepresentation about the family member’s obligation to pay such debts. A “principal creditor” is defined under current law as “any person, firm, corporation or organization to whom a consumer claim is owed, due or asserted to be…
A debt collector sent a letter to a consumer stating: “We can’t change the past, but we can help with your future.” The letter contained three payment options that were described as “discounts,” though one was merely a payment plan for the full balance. The letter advised “[i]f you pay your full balance, we will report your account as Paid in Full. If you pay less than your full balance, we will report your account as Paid in Full for less than the full balance.” The consumer filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of…
On Aug. 22, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 1526, relating to the collection of debt that is beyond the statute of limitations for bringing legal action. Since 2014, debt buyers collecting from California residents have been required by Cal Civ Code § 1788.52(d)(2) to provide one of two notices, as applicable, when a debt is “time-barred.” The new legislation creates the same requirement for debt collectors, making it a violation for a debt collector to send a collection letter to a consumer on a time-barred debt without providing the debtor with one of the following written notices, depending on…
On Aug. 14, Gov. Bruce Rauner signed into law the Illinois Career Preservation and Student Loan Repayment Act. The act moved through the legislature as Senate Bill 2439 and passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 104-3 in the House. The act provides that Illinois government agencies and boards can no longer deny, refuse to renew, suspend, revoke or take any other disciplinary action related to a person’s professional or occupational license because of a delinquency or default on a student loan guaranteed by the Illinois Student Assistance Commission or any other Illinois state agency. The legislation…
In a recent decision, the Ohio Court of Appeals considered the question whether, for the purpose of determining the applicable statute of limitations, an unsigned credit card agreement constituted a written or oral contract. In Ohio, the statute of limitations is eight years for a written contract and six years for an oral contract. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2305.06, 2305.07. A copy of the opinion in Unifund CCR Partners v. Piaser is available at: Link to Opinion. The Court noted that existing Ohio law was unclear on the written versus oral contract issue, and that previous decisions had determined…